NB: If anyone has trouble posting a comment, email it to doktorgosh (at) live.com, and I'll post it for you.

Notice to readers of my Kindle book:I recently noticed that, on certain devices (though not all), the Table of Contents begins with Chapter One and omits the Introduction and Preface. Since the Introduction is especially important, I urge everyone to make sure to begin reading at the very beginning of the book, not the first chapter in the Table of Contents. Thank you.

Tuesday, October 11, 2016

Lin Wood for the Defense

NB: I am not any longer going to tolerate posts containing personal attacks, on me or anyone else. If you feel the need to vent some frustration, that's OK. But attacks on an individual are not OK. Posts containing such attacks will be deleted.WARNING: Especially offensive posts will be marked as spam -- meaning that from now on nothing posted from the offending source will appear at all. If you desire reinstatement, you may email me with your request.

As I'm sure we all know by now, Lin Wood has sued Dr. Werner Spitz over his allegations that Burke Ramsey murdered his sister. Now, in an interview with Westword, he discusses his plans to sue CBS and the production company Critical Content over the same allegations. I have mixed feelings regarding Mr. Wood. On the one hand, I find his stubborn defense of "the Ramseys" over so many years to be misleading in the extreme. Thanks to his aggressive involvement in this case, all sorts of inaccurate and often outdated information has been widely disseminated (my all time favorite, the outrageous bit about "seven open doors and windows"). Stubbornly clinging to an intruder theory that's long since been thoroughly debunked, Wood has done everything possible to blow smoke over the substantial evidence of an inside job in which one or more of his clients very likely committed horrific acts.

On the other hand, I must say that I applaud his decision to sue CBS and some of the parties involved in that show for their truly irresponsible attempts to "solve" JonBenet's murder by fingering, of all people, the Ramseys' 9 year old pre-adolescent son, based on little more than amateurish attempts at "content analysis" and "deception analysis," a long list of unsubstantiated and unwarranted assumptions and a truly fantastic scenario based on nothing more than some fingerprints found on a bowl of pineapple. Not to mention their embarrassingly inept efforts to "prove" the Ramseys lied, by reproducing garbled sounds from an "enhanced" 911 tape containing phrases they claim to have heard, based obviously on what they want to have heard, because a great many listening to the same passages, including myself, heard nothing of the sort.

One highlight of the show was a segment in which Burke hesitated to identify a bowl of pineapple, from a photo that the audience never got to see -- with the implication that his hesitation reflected guilt over having assaulted his sister due to a dispute centering on that same bowl. Well, here's a web page containing six different views of the notorious Ramsey pineapple bowl -- and I'm wondering how many of us would be capable of recognizing its contents from those photos. I certainly can't. And if I were asked to identify the contents based on any of those photos, I too would hesitate.

So for once I must say I'm on Lin Wood's side. Go for it, Lin! I'm betting CBS and the others will fold and opt for a settlement. And I'm hoping Lin will, for a change, refuse to settle, and take the case to court. That would give all of us a chance to review the evidence and decide for ourselves, based on arguments from both sides.

247 comments:

hello. I just wrote a long post on the page previous to this so don't think I'll retype it. But yes, I said before that the lawsuit with CBS ought to be about bad television! There were areas they delved into that were just pure speculation (the enhanced phone call) and the INFERENCE that a bowl of half finished pineapple, a fingerprint on said bowl and a glass of iced tea with a scenario of JB reaching for a piece and getting chased and clubbed as motive, is a very big stretch. So if anything CBS still didn't get it right and how could they, they weren't really there. But what I think JR and Lin Wood and of course the plaintiff BR are afraid of is they got close to solving the case in some ways. That Burke was up late, that JB came downstairs, and that Burke felled the blow. They couldn't explain the garrotte (French spelling) could they, but since in my theory I don't believe JR tied that garrotte or the knot (Burke was a boyscout from 1993 "on" according to JR in his book Death of Innocence",)but Burke did. He had his knife down in the basement had been whittling on something before the housekeeper said and the knot around JB's wrists were far from sophisticated, tied so loosely as to indicate ritual game playing than restraint Burke had behavioral issues which may have been in part attributed to Asberger's Syndrome (need for a controlled and structured environment, tendency toward sudden rage episodes) CBS no way no how wanted to delve into Burke's psychology.

His life style now - working out of the public office away from social contact, we don't know if he has any significant other relationships with a girlfriend or not, his college days (no interviews from school mates) suggest a still very self-exiled isolated man. Also see former page for John's 1997 interview regarding Burke's state of mind before the Charlevoix trip. Thank you. Let the critics descend!

Same anon as below here... You say that we don't know anything about Burke's personal life except that he works from home (which tons and tons of people do), and that this suggests a self-exiled, isolated man. How? You say we know nothing, so I'm curious to know: what are you basing that on?

All it says to me is that Burke has done a good job of staying out of the public eye. And I don't see how that's suspicious.

BAsing it on interviews Dr Phil gave with the media, Fox News, and the like. Which gives us a little window into what Burke is like now. What he was like as a child can be seen on video, and other information I have cited previously. I also did an extensive search on Burke's college life but only found one student (and this has probably been taken off the internet) that said he was a loner. Can you not observe his mannerisms? Do you think he comes across as simply introverted and nervous, or something else?

He DID undergo therapy. So what you see now as an adult male is the product of what ever may have been worked out in therapy as a child. Introversion, inappropriate smiling, a nervousness is not a behavioral disorder. If so, we would all have one! But taken in totality from childhood on I say we start there. In his childhood.

One more comment - we have spent page after page here dissecting JR's personality as well As Patsy's, but very little on Burke. He was in therapy for something, for two years. Not the therapy we see on videotape - that was likely with a social worker or LE appointed child psychologist, but the therapy Burke underwent for two hears after the death of his sister.

I just wrote something along the same lines under the previous post, but I'll repeat it here: wouldn't you put your kid in therapy if his sister was brutally murdered? I fail to see how his being in therapy means anything for any theory, really. It can be interpreted to mean whatever we want it to mean. Kids go to therapy for divorce, bed wetting, trauma, bad grades, all sorts of things really.

I would put my kid in therapy if i thought he had something to do with her murder. Absolutely. Would I put him in therapy for two years just "because" she had been murdered? Probably not. Not unless he was exhibiting symptoms that showed distress, worrying, agitation, nightmares and a host of other post traumatic symptoms.

Perhaps Burke was "exhibiting symptoms that showed distress, worrying, agitation, nightmares and a host of other post traumatic symptoms" following his sister's murder. Most kids probably do after a family member is murdered. I agree with Anon, Burke's years in therapy don't point towards his guilt. In many of your posts, I see you reaching in order to make the BDI theory more plausible, and the fact you have to do that should tell you something.

once every 3 weeks for TWO YEARS. Every 3 weeks is not considered "intensive therapy" but are we seriously arguing that? He was there for two years. That is at the very least, continuous therapy. That I'm reaching MsD is your opinion because you don't believe BDI, you believe JDI. Not so difficult to figure that one out. I'm saying by looking into his psychology, his past, his behavior prior and hence, we can reach a better understanding of whether we wish to consider that he did it, or go with another theory.

your pointing to my muddying the waters you repeat over and over and that I was "chastised" by Doc - who hasn't Doc chastised over not believing his theory? Muddying the waters by saying Lin Wood will win the lawsuit is conjecture, by you, yet again.

These aren't attacks and they certainly aren't personal. I've told you I appreciate your enthusiasm for the case and your willingness to do research, but you have several times posted things that were simply incorrect, which does us all a disservice by creating confusion. That's my "beef".CC

Also couldn't J have taught Burke how to make a clove hitch, if you don't want to believe Burke could have made a sophisticated cord tying maneuver around an ordinary stick? Both J and B were on John's boat as well. IT might be a boat tying knot. Not singly one used in boy scouts.

The device that strangled JonBenet consisted of much more than a knot tied around a stick. It involved a loop placed around the victim's neck, with another knot designed to easily tighten and/or loosen it. It was a killing machine, not just a knot. And I doubt it was something you'd learn to construct as a Cub Scout.

the autopsy results were that it appeared a first striation was found in a different place on the neck as if there was a practice loop and choking. Other than the position of the cord that was embedded in her neck.

Hi,I am new to this blog and have some questions.1-Is it true there was a first 911 hang up call on the 26th before the call Patsy made? Were PR or JR ever asked about that first call to 911? What did they say?2-Is it true the police interviewed Burke at the White's on the 26th? What did he say?3-Is it true the tape found on JonBenet was from her doll?Could the string used be from the doll too?

I am one hundred percent RDI but I just can not ignore the DNA. I think they called someone else over that night to do the dirty job. Hence the missing phone records. And the contradicting staging elements. Unknown DNA doesnt mean that person is unknown to the Ramseys. Nor that he is a killer.

You can safely ignore the DNA. Touch DNA is notoriously subject to casual transfer, both primary and secondary, and even in some cases tertiary -- and like fingerprints it has no date stamp. If some of it got on JBR's hands it could easily spread to other parts of her body and clothing.

Yup, Wood is on the side of the angels this time, Doc. He's got a rock solid case, and I too hope he refuses a settlement and takes it to trial; not that I think that will produce any further grist for our mills - John's had 20 years to refine his story, as we saw with his recent addendum about the flashlight. Still, it'll be fun to watch.CC

I agree, CC. But Lin will have to be careful, because it won't only be Burke, but the intruder theory itself, that will be up for re-examination. If the CBS lawyers are smart, they'll go after the intruder theory first -- and if things get too hot to handle in that dept., Lin may be forced to back off.

This will be a weird one for us RDI. They accuse Spitz of falsely claiming that ahe was not sexually abused. It makea me so MAD that he will have to defend THIS supid claim he made and the entire expert team backed this crap up!

Multiple discussion sites in regard to Burke having or not having Asberger's Syndome, or at the least some behavioral disorders. But his medical records were sealed, as well as all medical records from Dr. Buef, JB's pediatrician. Burke's sessions with a psychologist (therapist or psychiatrist) would also be sealed. So trying to substantiate whether he really had AS or not will be difficult. Could have been hearsay. I know I heard it early on 20 years ago. So yes, I will research it further. Just as difficult to prove as John being a serial chronic abuser of his daughter.

Right On J. You are I are arguing for a serious, rational conversation if nothing else and we are also arguing for an open mind. But as you can see we are howling at the wind. When people's minds are closed, fixed, they will argue for their right to be right and disregard everything else. As you have said and as I have said, I have considered ALL OF IT, from day one. If nothing else I have been very open minded as have you.

Ms D, please show me any ACTUAL evidence and not your opinion that John Ramsey was molesting his daughter. I have a feeling I will be waiting a while because you and Doc and anonymous above do not have anything definitive saying he was molesting her. SO, what we are left with are our opinions as to what happened. First off, I didn't write a book on the subject and my point was that Doc has some nerve accusing CBS of being irresponsible when he is writing a book and started a blog. Double Standard? Regarding your "woe is me" comment.....not sure Im asking for any pity. I saw a poster on here questioning if Casey Anthony really was guilty, so I guess I should just realize that this is what Im dealing with. Anyways, you are on the clock to find that magic evidence pointing to John Ramsey as being a molester, a murderer, author of the RN, etc.

That's right J, because John was a "cold calculating CEO of a major corporation he built from the ground up and thus used to manipulating many people in his life as he climbed to the top. He was also a professional liar and knot tier which he must have picked up at his stitch in the Navy as a Civil Engineer, perhaps being part of some covert operation in Subic Bay in the Philippines. He says he worked from 8-5 sometimes 6 p.m. at night so that left him ample opportunity to molest his daughter getting in her little twin bed usually after everyone was asleep without his wife noticing he wasn't in bed with her. Oh but then maybe he drugged his wife the nights he wanted time with is daughter. Patsy suspected him as she told her pediatrician but neither one of them did anything about it for two years. " Get the picture J? Absurd with a capital A.

You have made several comments complaining about how people are allegedly treating you badly on this blog.....you may not want pity, but you're certainly stuck on this notion that you're being targeted. You're not. We are simply having a discussion, and you are just as guilty of being condescending as anyone else here. The difference is, we don't keep bringing it up, we accept it and move on, so should you :) Whether John was molesting his daughter or not is irrelevant as far as I'm concerned in regards to his guilt, as all of the other evidence points to him, and only him, so I can only speculate in regards to his motive for murdering his daughter. Sexual abuse may not be his motive - take that out of the equation, and all of the evidence *still* points to him. I'm not here to debate his motive, and if you look at all of my posts, you'll be hard pressed to find one where I discuss his alleged molestation of JB. Though, it is certainly a more plausible motive for murder than a piece of pineapple.

Ok Ms D, fair enough, lets get back to talking about the case and less of everything else

I have seen kids in a temper hit each other over taking a piece of candy, taking a toy, talking too loud, etc. So, its a little mind blowing that people are having such a hard time believing that it's possible in a moment of rage/anger that Burke could have hit her over the head. The much bigger leap is that John was covering up his prior molestation against his own daughter.

Her death came in 2 horrific parts. 1 was the blow to the head the other was strangulation. If it was JR, then why the 2 acts? Why not just strangle her?

Actually, J has said that he accepts the theory proposed on the CBS special, where Burke clubbed JB over the head over a piece of pineapple.....don't be so obtuse, you know very well the pineapple is key to the BDI theory. It is you who is intent on "muddying the waters", (your choice of words, not mine) by continuing to introduce dubious information and asking us to defend straw man arguments.

Easy Ms D, I never said I accepted every bit of what the CBS special proposed. I believe the pineapple bowl was 100% Burke's and I believe the pineapple in JBR's stomach was from Burke's pineapple bowl. The incident that led to the head blow definitely could have been over pineapple or the pineapple was the start of it and he hit her over her taking a toy or something. I honestly don't know what you are getting at by saying we are muddying the waters. Which point do you want to discuss:

1. the bowl of pineapple and iced tea were Burke's because his fingerprints were on both

2. the piece of pineapple (or are you in the fruit cocktail camp) found in her stomach probably came from the same bowl that Burke was eating from?

The pineapple is a major clue, so please let me know which one you want to discuss and we will go from there.

"It's a little mind blowing that people are having such a hard time believing that it's possible in a moment of rage/anger that Burke could have hit her over the head. The much bigger leap is that John was covering up his prior molestation against his own daughter."As I have stated several times, that Burke may have clobbered his sister over the head, is quite believable - no one doubts that this is entirely possible. It is the leap one needs to make in order to accept the subsequent cover up that people just don't buy, and with good reason. One has to suspend ALL logic in order to buy it. Refer to my earlier post addressed to you, it may have went unnoticed on the previous page, as it was one of the last comments, I will repost under this comment.

In response to J's post:"If JDI, all of you are arguing that it was premeditated correct?"*Not at all. Only one or two people here believe it was, from what I have read. "So, JR planned to shut her up on Christmas night to stop her from exposing him as a pedophile."*I don't believe he "planned" anything, hence the sloppy staging."He had absolutely no way to get her out of the house that night, so he took a pure gamble that his wife would believe a 3 page ransom note."*Once he killed JB, his options in regards to moving her body undetected were limited. He needed to buy time, and the words in that note scream that the author is desperate for time, that is why I do not believe it was simply written as phony evidence of an intruder. The instructions are too specific, they serve a purpose and are testament to the fact that the note was not merely composed as a red herring. If it were, it would have been a much shorter note. All investigators - whichever camp they belong to - agree that the contents of the note point very clearly to the identity of the author, and going by the instructions, it is John who had everything to gain by writing that note. Don't underestimate the value of the RN by simply writing it off as a bluff to fool LE. Once people realize the purpose of the note, the perpetrator becomes patently obvious. "Then he leaves his life as a free man in jeopardy as he lets Patsy dial 911 without attempting to stop her with the body in the house."*As you said, he was most likely in the shower when Patsy dialed 911. Probably washing off damning physical evidence that he could never explain away to Patsy, or perhaps she woke up earlier than he anticipated. "He goes thru alllllllll this planning to make it look like a Foreign Faction took his daughter, but silly John, he forgot to make an entry point for the kidnappers. He didn’t open a window, he didn’t jimmy a lock or open a window. No….good ole Crazy John broke a small pane of glass in the basement window and scrambled to cover his tracks on that."*He didn't "forget" to make an entry point, he was going to complete his staging after Patsy and Burke left, you know that already, as it is integral to understanding why John's plan backfired. Tell me this: how does your theory of BDI, along with his parents covering for him by staging evidence of an intruder, make sense of John, or Patsy, not making a point of entry before calling the police? That he hadn't faked a point of entry ONLY makes sense if John didn't EXPECT the police to be called! Had he and Patsy both covered for Burke, they would have been sure to jimmy a lock or open a window BEFORE calling the police, therefore your last point actually points to JDI. Thanks for your support!

"This my friends is al based on facts and logic according to certain posters on here"

It's a helluva lot more logical than your scenario.....disturbed kid injures sister, so parents - rather than call for help - fashion a garrote, strangle her to death, insert a foreign object into her vagina (even though they're staging a kidnapping, they inexplicably decide that some molestation might look good), write a three page ransom note then call the cops to search the house while her body decomposes in the basement...yes, those who subscribe to the BDI theory are most certainly "living in a fantasy world". I have never heard of such a fantastical, convoluted pile of rubbish in my life. If your son hurts your daughter, you don't opt to sacrifice her life in order to make his easier. If you do, because you're some sick kind of parent who favors your son, then you stage an accident (a fall down the stairs, for example), you don't, in your grief, fake a PHONY kidnapping-cum-sex crime (take your pick, it appears in your proposed scenario that John and Patsy couldn't quite decide on which phony motive they preferred) complete with a 3 page ransom note. There is zero logic in this scenario.

"BR offers to take lie detector test over JB murder after experts blame him for death" (https://www.thesun.co.uk, James Beal 9/25/2016)however "Burke's lawyers said they'd be willing to comply with further investigation - but also insisted he had 'nothing to prove' as no new evidence had come to light." (same article). Okay so, as he taken one then? Answer: Probably No. SAme thing JR said in his 1997 interview - that if they could find a reputable lie detector administrator then sure, he would. Guess they couldn't in all of Boulder including the FBI! Only his own, found by his attorneys were reputable enough for John. Probably same as now. Wish the cops would press this -

Will I change my stance that he 1) had something to do with it; 2) that he did it himself; 3) that he did part of it but not all of it; I would tend to believe a lie detector test administered by LE or FBI over one administered by his attorney but good luck getting one of those with Lin Wood representing the Ramsey's. the polygrapher could ask a questions: did you kill your sister? and then follow up with "do you know who did kill your sister?" He could answer no to bother of those questions if he didn't THINK he killed his sister and if he was told he didn't, and was told they don't know who did by his parents, since they staged the house to make it look like an intruder. So before I answer your unclear question I would have to have a situation where I saw actual transcript of the lie detector results, who administered it, what questions were asked and what the response could be before I can even begin to answer your question and ones I have myself. But first let's see if anyone GIVES him one before we try and predict a future that hasn't happened.

Believe it or not, I have no burning desire to stick to the belief that JDI. The thought of it makes me sick. I wish it was someone else who committed the murder, to be honest, and would be very happy to be proven wrong.

Same here J. Burke said he would take one by the cops, Lin Wood said they would be "willing to comply with further investigation." What does that tell you. It tells me Lin Wood will not allow his client to take a LE lie detector test. I do think even if he did the results would show up "inconclusive." As we know John did take - between the two of them J and P, 5 lie detector tests. But not administered by LE.

Polygraphs measure galvanic skin response (sweating) and heart rate. If Patsy took a polygraph and was medicated it could skew the results. But so far Burke has not sat for one. Maybe it's time he did.

"Hey man, I got exonerated by the jury and these people still say I did it".

I hope CBS sticks to its guns. You are allowed to theorize about an unsolved crime and not be sued. I hope the lawsuit results in a comprehensive, all out review of the evidence. because the best defense to a defamation claim is . . . that what was said is true.

I think though Anonymous that the lawsuit against Spitz has to do with what he stated they found in her small intestine, (although they are saying large intestine). Someone else here gave a link to the actual claims in the lawsuit.

Dammit, Inq, you're forcing me to do it again. The pertinent document is a Complaint for Defamation, and has to do with Werner Spitz slandering Burke in an interview with CBS Detroit Radio. The only mention of fruit or intestines is in paragraph 62, which states that Spitz relied on incorrect information regarding same. CC

Okay, then what someone posted several days ago describing the law suit was perhaps superficial. I yield to you, you are the expert on things legal here. I do like information to be corrected, and complete, so thank you.

You said...InquisitiveOctober 9, 2016 at 3:53 PM"I looked up something else earlier. Defamation law suits. I don't know if this statement will play a part in whether Burke has a case or not against Dr. Spitz but here's a quote: "people who aren't elected but who are still public figures because they are influencial or famous-like movie stairs-also have to prove that defamatory statements were made with actual malice, in most cases." Is Burke Ramsey considered a public figure?"

I responded...HKHOctober 9, 2016 at 5:18 PM"@Inquisitive, the complaint filed by Wood basically claims that Burke is not considered a public figure because he has remained silent on the case up until this September when he gave the interview with Dr. Phil. The complaint says Burke's reason for agreeing to the interview was that he was made aware of the upcoming CBS special where he would be named the prime suspect. The complaint also states that Spitz's statements were made with actual malice because Spitz ignored evidence, and basically had it out for the Ramseys. Obviously, I'm paraphrasing what is stated in the complaint, but that's the gist of it concerning the points you bring up."

Then, in a subsequent post, I provided you with the link to the actual complaint, so that you could read it for yourself.

Please don't post your misinterpretation of information, and then try to pass the buck, when called out.

You said...InquisitiveOctober 9, 2016 at 3:53 PM"I looked up something else earlier. Defamation law suits. I don't know if this statement will play a part in whether Burke has a case or not against Dr. Spitz but here's a quote: "people who aren't elected but who are still public figures because they are influencial or famous-like movie stairs-also have to prove that defamatory statements were made with actual malice, in most cases." Is Burke Ramsey considered a public figure?"

I responded...HKHOctober 9, 2016 at 5:18 PM"@Inquisitive, the complaint filed by Wood basically claims that Burke is not considered a public figure because he has remained silent on the case up until this September when he gave the interview with Dr. Phil. The complaint says Burke's reason for agreeing to the interview was that he was made aware of the upcoming CBS special where he would be named the prime suspect. The complaint also states that Spitz's statements were made with actual malice because Spitz ignored evidence, and basically had it out for the Ramseys. Obviously, I'm paraphrasing what is stated in the complaint, but that's the gist of it concerning the points you bring up."

Then, in a subsequent post, I provided you with the link to the actual complaint, so that you could read it for yourself.

Please don't post your misinterpretation of information, and then try to pass the buck, when called out.

My apologies, HKH. I should have looked up your post rather than taking Inq at face value. She'll never see today's post unless you re-post in the most current discussion - she doesn't seem to swim upstream.CC

I'm interested to learn if anyone can say with certainty that Burke had behavioral issues and/or Asberger's Syndrome, and if he was diagnosed with Asberger's, why it is believed he had rage problems. I work with some kids at my church who have Asberger's, and they are all very mellow, sweet children. I've never seen anything close to rage in any of them.

Also, I am an engineer. I know that people with Asberger's can be smart, but it takes way more than being smart to complete the engineering or comp sci coursework at Purdue. There are group projects and presentations, networking to get complex homework problems solved, and it does require one to be social.

I'm also from Atlanta. People from my office had kids who attended Burke's private school. He was not anti-social there, and he had a girlfriend who was very cute, popular, and well liked. I have seen photos of him in Charlevoix that would indicate he was social.

Some of your seem really ignorant about remote working in the high tech field. I work from home for one of the largest high tech companies in the world. We are on video conferences and phone conferences very much during each day. When we are not, we are using email or actually doing work like writing software and testing it. We all use social media to stay connected with our work friends who live in all parts of the world. There is simply no reason for me to believe that Burke is socially maladjusted - in fact most of my co-workers are very social and adaptive, because we have to to be in order to work with people in all continents!

I have been searching for legitimate information for weeks now on whether Burke had Asberger's or not. I did consult with a friend of mine who is a physician that explained the symptoms of AS, I also went online and looked up the symptoms. I have an adult male friend age 66 who said he had AS as a child and had a host of emotional problems aggravated by AS, including rage episodes. I think there are probably different degrees of it, from mild to severe. I read long long ago, way way back 20 years ago, that Burke had AS. Now for the first time in 20 years we're here discussing this case on a blog site and I'm guessing some information on the internet has been taken off the internet or the information might even be erroneous. I didn't say Burke had Asberger's, only that it was said that he did, and if he did one of the symptoms is the need for a structured environment and bouts of uncontrolled rage. It is unfortunate that at the time of this crime much information was put out there to the public via The Globe and National Enquirer as the Ramsey's refused to talk to LE, initially. They also went on national television to plead their case as they thought they were under the umbrella of suspicion, as they were. Now here we are again 20 years later exploring other theories and trying to understand how it could all fit. But I will ask you something: do you think Burke seemed let's just say "unusual" on the Dr. Phil show? One could chalk it up to nerves, of course. Also Dr. Phil is notorious for asking his guests if they would be willing to take a polygraph. Did he ask Burke to? I didn't finish the show so I don't know - but I suspect not. And if he did, what was the response.

P.S. Unfortunately no one can force Burke to take a lie detector test. And I don't think it will come up in this particular lawsuit. He is in his rights not to take one. But has anyone asked him to? Did Dr. Phil? He said he would take one but was that followed up on?

I watched the show but do not recall Dr. Phil asking him to take a polygraph. He could have, and I missed it. I think there are recordings of the show now if you want to look for that. I thought Burke seemed ok on the show. The smiling was odd, but I was told that I smiled at my mother's funeral even though I don't recall doing so. In hindsight, I think I was trying to make myself feel calm. Smiling does not mean one has Asberger's anyhow. In summary, Burke seemed to behave like an innocent person who was a little bit on guard would behave. If he really did all those horrible things, he would have to be real fool to go on the show at all.

Agreed - inappropriate smiling is not a symptom of Asberger's. Didn't say it was. I'm reading the candyrose synopsis now and it's very well written. I recommend everyone read it. I gave the address above

I meant that someone on this blog weeks ago speculated that the Pastor gave Patsy something, not that she was given something weeks before that day. ARggg. I need an aspirin. Patsy's behavior for all intents and purposes was very odd when the police officer arrived at the house, and later when Linda Arnt was present. But it can't be verified that she was "given anything" until the next day. Although one of her friends could have slipped her a valium. If it were me I'd want a shot of morphine.

J, in the CBS special it did bother me that they interviewed Fleet White, said he did not want to go on camera, but then they just dropped it. No mention of how that turned out. And then at the end they took a "poll" I guess you could call it and said they were all in agreement. But they didn't say "Burke did it." Good thinking, one lawsuit coming up had they said that. All of them would be sued. Even in Kolar's book he doesn't out and and out say "Burke did it." But now Spitz is being sued anyway so so much for covering themselves.

everyone please read the Bonita Papers address provided above. It will tell all of the fiber evidence found on the body. Apparently there was a small piece of paper found on her cheek. Well, everyone read for yourself.

Before you get too excited, you should understand their provenance, and know that their content has been largely disavowed by both Ms Sauer and Jameson. Read 'em with a hefty grain of salt - they're not gospel.CC

Okay, but regarding Burke it's stated that Dr. Bernard (social services, Jan. 8, 1997 and what was in the video Dr. Phil showed) "the only thing Burke asked his dad after the murder was 'where did you find her body.'" Which Dr. Burke found strange. Also when asked what he thought happened to his sister he said someone took her down to the basement with a knife and hit her over the head. And, coincidentally Burke's knife was found in the basement. I've heard all of this 20 years ago of course, but things get blurred being on this blogsite.

oopps, not Dr. Burke, I meant Dr. Bernard. Typing too fast. I'm only reading the long synopsis so far from the Bonita Papers, their family history, events of Dec. 25, 26, County Coroner, and follow up.

The Bonita Papers are supposedly notes taken by Bonita Sauer, secretary to an attorney who was being consulted by BPD, at meeting (s) during which the case was discussed. Ms Sauer's . . .nephew, iirc, subsequently tried to sell them, and I believe that's how Jameson came to publish them on her website. Doc would know better than I; he's acquainted with all the players and his memory is prodigious. I only recall that both Sauer and Jameson later claimed no knowledge of how they came to be and would not stand by their veracity.

Much of the rest of acandyrose can be verified, though, and it's a generally good source.CC

"So for once I must say I'm on Lin Wood's side. Go for it, Lin! I'm betting CBS and the others will fold and opt for a settlement. And I'm hoping Lin will, for a change, refuse to settle, and take the case to court. That would give all of us a chance to review the evidence and decide for ourselves, based on arguments from both sides."

Doc:

1) If the case goes to court, isn't it possible that, as evidence is presented and witnesses testify, CBS loses faith in its BDI position yet becomes increasingly convinced--as convinced as you and I are--that an intruder could not have committed the crime? Of course, that would make it wise from a financial standpoint for CBS to settle. But how far might CBS be willing to push the envelope on such a key aspect of this case to make Wood anxious about the welfare of his other client named Ramsey? Money lost to Burke could easily be recouped by being on the frontlines of a potentially far more lucrative story.

2) What if, during the trial, it begins to dawn on Burke that his father WAS the one who killed his sister? Or instead of experiencing gradually dawning suspicions, he has an epiphany of the sort you experienced when you saw John Ramsey's handwritten letter and marked how it resembled the writing in the ramsome note?

I guess what I'm saying here, is that I would think you would prefer the case go to trial, not so that we are all provided "a chance to review the evidence and decide for ourselves (whether BDI?)", but to observe and determine the ramifications of how all the actors on the stage behave.

Along those lines, I have three related questions.

1) Have you tried to get your book into the hands of law enforcement officers involved in this case, or those capable ofreopening it if it's current status is "cold"?

2) Have you considered zipping a copy of it off to CBS?

3) What is the purpose behind your alias? My Dad wanted a list of other books you've written. I also read on the internet one person's review of "Ruled In" which gave it one star out of five simply because its author, by remaining anononymous, "must have something to himself to hide". A stupid reason for panning it, but one which, nevertheless, raises ones curiosity in regard to who you really are.

Good on CBS. First documentary I have seen which is based on facts with renowned experts. Only dodgey part was the 911 call section but that was mainly for ratings imo.

And Doc, please answer this. Patsy stated that she very quickly glanced at the RN, read that JB was kidnapped and then immediately rang the police. When asked where the RN was when she made the call, she stated it was spread out on the stairs and John was reading it. She could NOT see it from where she was.

Yet when asked by the operator who took "her" (Patsy never even gave them JBs name hahaha), Patsy first of all got into a bit of a tangle and said "What!?"...obviously giving herself time because that question wasn't part of her scripted call. Patsy then said "SBTC Victory".

She only quickly scanned the letter, yet she was able to produce this acronym perfectly with all letters in the correct order. She didn't ask John to read it out. Patsy is a liar. She knew what it said because that phone call was scripted through and through.

And the fact she just hung up when the operator was still there...who does that. Her scripting was finished and she needed to hang up so she didn't stumble or say anything incriminating.

Patsy wrote that RN and that 911 call was always going to happen, even with the body in the house. I just wish John was the melodramatic one and Patsy cool and calm. Because then they would have chosen John to make that call. But in most husband and wife couples, I would say the female would make that call. Simple as that.

I really think everyone who believes JDI needs to take a step back, look at all the facts (not fiction), look at all the lies and inconsistencies Patsy told. Look at the RN handwriting which was a much closer match to Patsy (John was ruled out for a reason despite Docs best efforts to dispute that), look at the fingerprints on the notepad (only Patsys), look at Patsy in the same clothes, look at Patsy being drugged up (sign of guilt and so she didn't have to speak), look at Patsy ignoring all the demands in the RN, look at Patsy inviting friends over, look at Patsys feeble attempt in 1997 saying "a killer is out there"...I mean the list goes on. Patsy knew exactly what had happened when that call had been made.

Hiya Zed, I know you didn't address this to me, but to Doc. But just wanted to say that in the beginning I thought PDI and that poor innocent John realize it at some point and had to come to that horrible realization and help her. But now I think they both knew it, don't you? And yes, I think that 911 call was scripted. The hangup a few seconds before was probably because she wasn't prepared to make it sound real. You know, when you dial, then think better of it and hang up. I do'nt think John slammed the phone down or said "no, they said not to call." They might have had a disagreement though as to what she was going to say or how she was going to say it. What the hell does that SBTC Victory reference mean anyway (in the note). Any ideas? saved by the cross, or Subic Bay something or other? Or was SBTC something in one of the movies they may have watched?

Nothing new as it's not needed Doc. Patsy was in on it. Hopefully it will come out one day and I can say "I told you so".

Hey Inquisitive - yes I find it very strange that people can't see Patsy was not in on it. I'd bet my last dime on it!!!! There comes a time when all the bit of evidence and inconsistencies paint a clear picture. Patsy knew exactly what she was doing that morning.

In regards to SBTC I haven't given it much thought as it could literally be anything. It could even be four random letters chosen just to cause confusion.

Zed, I read yay back when that Patsy became more religious after getting cancer in 1993 and that the SBTC could have been a "saved by the cross" reference. But if John inserted it in the letter than he may have even done it to point to her and further confuse. But that would be really wrong, throwing his wife under the bus. I don't buy that she was "gaslighted" about the window or anything else. He'd have to do some heavy duty gaslighting in the two days prior to the sit down interview with the police. She was her own person by all accounts.

Yeah we could pick apart the ransom note until we are blue in the face. I wonder what the practice notes said? Not the "Mr and Mrs. Ramsey" but the sheets that were torn out and done away with. Now I'm wondering how Lifetime will handle the next "dramatization."

I have said this from day one. Just because the 911 call happened, doesn't mean that John had to have killed JB. John could have been the one to stage JB's death and covered any potential sexual abuse with the garrote (which really only points to him doing as the knot was very detailed). Maybe Patsy didn't know how John was staging the death - maybe she was only writing the letter while John did the dirty work. She might not at all have seen how John chose to make it look like she was purposefully murdered by an intruder. Didn't Patsy shriek when John brought up JB's body from the basement? Maybe she was not prepared to see what had been done to her daughter's body.

There is really NO evidence that points to any attempts to take JB out of the house and dump her body somewhere. That, to me, would be very difficult for amatures to do and more likely for them to get caught with the body outside the house. That is why such a dramatic "kidnapping" scene was created. There was no need for a ransom note for John to take JB out of the house and dump her body. If all of this happened shortly after midnight, then he could have taken her out of the house in the middle of the night when it was more likely no one would see or hear him. Creating the note, waiting for Patsy to read it, then using the guise that he had to go to the bank and get money in order to take JB's body out of the house and dump her body somewhere would be MORE risky. Wouldn't Patsy be all over John out of fear and wouldn't she see him struggling to carry a large, bukly attoche bag? Patsy would have known that John was going to the bank to get the ransom money, so when he was outside the house and veered anywhere from his travels from his home to the bank and from the bank back home, wouldn't there be the possibility someone would see him with a large bag near any area where he could have dumped the body? Wouldn't Patsy know how long it takes to go the bank and get back home? They were in a large city, a bank was probably pretty close by, so say around 30-45 min max for a bank trip? If John had to go to the bank AND dump JB's body somewhere, wouldn't that take WELL over an hour and run the risk of someone seeing him? Bank's have cameras. They could see when John went to the bank and how long he took there. If his trip veered from that time frame, he would be suspect, ON TOP of someone potentially seeing him veer from the bank route.

Not to mention that any dna from JB could have gotten into John's car and he would be finished if it were found. He would have to tack on time to clean his car trunk to the timeframe of him going to the bank, dumping JB's body somewhere remote where no one would find him. That is LOT of time for him to be away and hugely risky with the DNA in the car. John and Patsy can control what is in their house, but not what is outside their house such as other people driving or walking by, security cameras, cleaning up messes or evidence from cars, people spotting their car driving in locations they would not normally go, etc.

They can shut up themselves and shut the rest of their family/friends up, but they can't shut strangers up. They didn't live in rural area...they lived in a big city and it was the holidays and they happen to live in an area where a LOT of people travel to during the winter months.

If the argument is that Patsy ruined John's plans because she called the cops which didn't allow JOhn to take the body out of the house, then it must have been decided that JOhn was going to take JB's body out to the car when he went to the bank which leads to the questions I posted above.

The specifics of ransom note are there for a reason, it depends on who wrote the note what the reasons are.

"You will withdraw $118,000.00 from your account. $100,000 will be in $100 bills and the remaining $18,000 in $20 bills." ->(Specific amount of money from specific account, if perpetrator not an intruder, it is an amount that perpetrator knows is available in their account and they can obtain).

"Make sure that you bring an adequate size attache to the bank." ->(If perp not an intruder, size matters because can dispose of Jonbenet's body and forces reader/Ramsey a reason to leave the house to go to a "bank").

"When you get home you will put the money in a brown paper bag." ->(If perp not an intruder gives a reason why not paper bag could be used on the way back from bank, and attache not brought back into the house)

"I will call you between 8 and 10 am tomorrow to instruct you on delivery." ->(Specific time of call, I think whoever wrote note meant morning of December 26th, so if perp not an intruder that means again someone had to go outside of house, but also meant someone else had to stay home and wait for phone call from the kidnappers between 8a-10a.<-two people couldn't go together... So what time does family normally wake up, PR on 12/26 prior to 6a. This means not a lot of time to search house and short time to hold off calling LE because Ransom note specifically instructed Ramseys not to call police.

"The delivery will be exhausting so I advise you to be rested." (If perp not an intruder, I interpret this to mean to reader don't stress out the person who needs to gather and deliver "ransom money" ie "body". ie don't question too much.

"If we monitor you getting the money early, we might call you early to arrange an earlier delivery of the money and hence a earlier delivery pickup of your daughter." (If the perp is not an intruder, I interpret this sentence that "kidnapper" wants an out to be able to leave sooner than 8a to obtain money, the "kidnapper" is agreeable to the Ramseys obtaining money earlier.

The ransom note is also interesting because it keeps JR in full control regardless of who the perp is, but also if perp not an intruder keeps JR fully aware of the situation because LE would certainly question him about his past acquaintances because he is the primary "victim" and cause of "motive/revenge" of kidnappers/ransom note. Note the kidnappers also respect him, just not the countries business serves, so compliment him but just murdered his daughter.

I know we could go around in circles for hours but I can't help myself... I keep coming back here. Sigh. Zed, I'd like to address your post above.

You wrote:

"Patsy stated that she very quickly glanced at the RN, read that JB was kidnapped and then immediately rang the police. When asked where the RN was when she made the call, she stated it was spread out on the stairs and John was reading it. She could NOT see it from where she was.

Yet when asked by the operator who took "her" (Patsy never even gave them JBs name hahaha), Patsy first of all got into a bit of a tangle and said "What!?"...obviously giving herself time because that question wasn't part of her scripted call. Patsy then said "SBTC Victory".

She only quickly scanned the letter, yet she was able to produce this acronym perfectly with all letters in the correct order. She didn't ask John to read it out. Patsy is a liar. She knew what it said because that phone call was scripted through and through."

My response:

The Ramseys have provided two differing accounts of what happened that night as far as I know. Early on PR said she saw the note and immediately ran to the phone, while JR ran upstairs to check on Burke. The account you are referring to came up much later - in their book I think.

In the first version, PR running to the phone by herself, why is it impossible that she still had the note in her hand? This sign of "guilt" that you see can be easily explained away without contradicting PR's story.

Even in the second scenario, where JR in on his hands and knees (personally I call B.S. on that one but I won't get into that) - it's perfectly plausible that JR could have heard the dispatcher on the phone and held up the note so that PR could read the signature.

So in either case, her knowing the acronym means nothing. It can be explained in several ways and isn't a convincing argument for her guilt.

And as for her handwriting, I invite you to take a look at Doc's post on the matter. He compares the RN with PR and JR's handwriting samples here: http://solvingjonbenet.blogspot.nl/2012/07/some-handwriting-evidence.html

You can also search through the blog to find more. I also used to believe that PR's handwriting matched the RN, simply because that's what we've been told. But take a look at it for yourself.

He also has a very thorough, detailed post examining the evidence against Patsy here: http://solvingjonbenet.blogspot.nl/2012/08/patsy-patsy.html

Presumably JBR rode in both the Jag and the Grand Cherokee; it would not be unusual to find her DNA there.

I lived in Boulder for 6 years during undergraduate and law school. It is not a "large city", and it's 10 minutes from 15th Street up Baseline or Boulder Canyon Drive to the Front Range of the Rockies, where cliffs and sheer drop offs abound. John could have claimed he was meeting the kidnappers on the 27th at Boulder Falls or any one of a dozen trailheads.

But it is a college town and full of a lot of people for a "not large city? right? And if it is a not large city, then that means less time to drive to a bank and back. Remember, timeline of the security cameras at bank vs. time it would take for John to driver somewhere obscure where no one would see him dump the body and get back home. Aren't there a lot of hikers in Boulder? Isn't it entirely possible that someone could be hiking at any time on those trails? There is no indication that the kidnappers wanted to meet John according to the RN. They were to wait for a phone call that could NOT come in because there were no kidnappers!!

The way I read the RN he was to get the money, return home and wait for a phone call and further instructions - so no problem with bank/camera/timeline.

No need to pretend a meeting with the kidnappers, merely a drop-off of the ransom.

Presumably there's always a possibility of being observed when a murderer dumps a body anywhere; I would think that risk just comes with the territory. Personally, I'd be pretty comfortable doing it in the Front Range.CC

The "kidnapper's" call was to come on the 27th. No question about that at all. It said "tomorrow" for one thing. For another, the banks don't open at 8AM so there would be no time for John to collect the ransom before the phone call, if it were to come on the morning of the 26th. Also there would be no time for John to be "rested."

John could have persuaded Patsy to leave with Burke to stay with friends, "for their safety" while he dealt with the "kidnappers." Once they are out of the house, he could easily have called from a phone booth, with the answering machine picking up the call.

I'm not saying this was necessarily John's plan, but he could certainly have done it that way. And I'm not saying it wasn't risky -- it certainly was. But killing your daughter is also risky. And getting her body out of the house would have been essential to the staging of a phony kidnapping.

Doing that the night of the murder would have been far too risky, as Patsy or Burke could have awakened to find him gone -- and anyone who spotted his car on the road that night would certainly have reported it. Dumping the body on the following night would not have been very risky at all, as he could have claimed he was delivering the ransom. Secreting the body in a plastic garbage bag would have sealed it off from the rest of the trunk.

This scenario may seem far fetched to some -- but it explains EVERYTHING.

Bottom line: the 911 call would not have been made that morning if both Ramseys were collaborating on a coverup. Everything else follows from that.

Ok, so John laid out the ransom note on the stairwell and JB's body was not out of the house. What was that about? How was he supposed to get JB's body out of the house after Patsy found the RN? If he was to do it when he went to the bank to get the money, then, as I stated above, you mean to tell me that he was going to find a way to dump her body without being seen and go to the bank....all while his frantic wife was sitting at home waiting for him? All the while ensuring no one would anywhere NOT at the bank? And my point about the security cameras at the bank was that if police asked John and Patsy for a timeline of when he left the house, arrived at the bank, and made it back home...the security camera and distance to and from the bank could be calculated. If he veered from that timeframe, it would be suspect.

Finding a place to dump a body isn't like driving through a fast food drive through. I would image it would take time to find a remote location, watch to see if there was anyone in the area or anyone about to arrive, then getting the body out of the car and then getting rid of any (as you described it "plastic") covering used to cover JB's body (unless you are assuming he would leave her covered up in the plastic?").

You can't assume all of that would be done within the time frame of him going to the bank to get the ransom money.

You can't assume that any other time John would have left the home to do whatever he said he needed to do while his frantic wife and son were left home or at a friend's home, that it wouldn't be noted by his wife and reported to police/detectives at any point.

Why do you think Patsy was this stupid moron who wasn't aware of her surroundings? You mean she wouldn't notice that her husband was in and out of the house or away from the bank for longer than it takes to go to the bank and it wouldn't catch her eye?

I realize that my take on this case is complicated, and various details are spread out in various parts of this blog, so I can understand if you are confused. I can't expect everyone to read the whole thing, admittedly. But I would urge you to use the search mechanism on the upper right of the page to inform yourself regarding any issues you might have questions about. I don't have time to go over every single aspect of my theory every time someone raises questions of this kind. In your case the answers can be found on this blog. But you will need to dig a little to find them.

I think the Ramsey's, in particular Patsy, would want their daughter's body for proper burial. Dumping it in some rural area, where it may take weeks or months to find (or like in the case of Chandra Levy, a year) or maybe never, would have been of even further consternation for a grieving mother. Didn't she take great care in selecting her burial outfit, and wasn't it an open casket? Open caskets are most definitely something southerner's do. Regardless, I don't believe dumping of the body was ever the intention. Just IMO :)

Oh my God, now we're generalizing about Southerners. Can we stick to the case and its evidence, and what the evidence points to? Regardless of what Patsy may or may not have wanted, her husband was trying to save his own hide, narcissist that he was and is. Just read his Other Side of Suffering. He's a serious narcissist.

I picked up on that too, Jon......I don't think Inq puts a lot of thought into his posts anymore.

"Didn't she take great care in selecting her burial outfit, and wasn't it an open casket? Open caskets are most definitely something southerner's do. Regardless, I don't believe dumping of the body was ever the intention. Just IMO :)"

Your logic never fails to amaze me, but I'll play along...the answer to your question is "Patsy (the Southerner - let's pretend it matters) was never going to dump JB's body because she DIDN'T WRITE THE NOTE! She wasn't aware there WAS a body! John (from Michigan....again, I'm playing along for the sake of argument) wrote the note.....because HE killed JB!" For Pete's sake, responding to your "logic" is exhausting.

Inquisitive, you and your mom aren't the only people raised in the south. I am southern, too, as is my entire family on both sides. I've only been to 2 open casket funerals in my life, and I'm almost 60 years old. You are missing the point -- statements like that have no bearing on solving this case!

I agree, Inq...I don't think PR could have lived with dumping the body and then hoping someone would come upon it sometime in the future.

In addition, had JR planned on dumping the body, and if PR was totally innocent, what was he going to tell her? I doubt she would've stayed in the house alone while he went to the bank. And how could he drop her off at a friend's house and expect her to be act normally in the face of what was happening.

Geez, ya'll! It has already been discussed on this blog that the theory would be to have Burke and Patsy leave the house "for their own safety." Why would he need her to act normally at her friend's house? Of course she would be upset, but would be hoping he was getting her baby back in exchange for the money.

You are completely forgetting about Burke. He was there, too. But, you are right, would Patsy feel safe staying home alone with her son after her house was broken into and her daughter kidnapped from the home? Especially when the RN said they were being watched?

If she was in the dark, she would follow the instructions to the letter in that RN. She wouldn't want the kidnappers who were watching to see anything out of the ordinary. They'd wouldn't have called anyone and waited for the phone call (which we all know never came) before contacting anyone.As it happened, she called 911 (and friends) and she told the operator she didn't read the entire letter. Who wouldn't read the entire letter?

And no, I didn't forget about Burke. As it was, they left him in his room alone after finding the RN, whn anyone else wouldn't have left him out of their sight. I found that hard to believe as well. If an intruder got in, how do you know he isn't still there? That house was enormous. And yet, you leave him alone in his bedroom? It just doesn't add up.None of that makes sense to me, at all.

EG, getting real tired of repeating. The fact is, she called. I think it very possible that she didn't read the entire letter. I know when I'm upset, I have a hard time concentrating. There are a number of scenarios that cover why she would have called, but the fact is, she called.

Of course she called. How else were they going to get the show on the road, after deciding not to dump the body? They had to start with the 911 call, followed by the friends and the pastor. Let's do exactly what the RN told us NOT to do. That makes absolutely NO sense.

EG-It makes complete and total sense. You must first enter into Doc's school of backwards logical inferencing to fully understand things of this nature. By doing the exact opposite of everything in the note was PR proving her innocence. Kinda like wearing the same clothes and lying during the 911 call about not fully reading it. Think along those lines.

It would have been a bit much to ask EG. Go away for a few hours, in fact until I give the okay some time tonight, don't let on to your friends why you are agitated. We know Burke will be in his own little world playing with his Nintendo and his planes, then when I've rolled your daughter off the side of a cliff up in the mountains of Boulder you can come home and no one will ever know.

Getting really tired of repeating myself. If the plan was to call the police first thing in the morning, then why go to all the trouble to plant all those horrific threats in the note? To make it look like you don't care about your daughter?

And of course as I've said many times, if they didn't want to dump their daughter so she couldn't get a "proper burial," then they would not have prepared a ransom note -- certainly not one written on paper from their own house.

Another straw man argument, Inquisitive....you know very well that according to the JDI theory, Patsy was in the dark, therefore John would not have told her that after the deed that he had rolled their "daughter off the side of a cliff up in the mountains of Boulder you can come home and no one will ever know." What's with the chronic dishonesty? You're making it so difficult to take this site seriously anymore, which is a real shame.....

Burke Ramsey's fingeprints on the bowl are actually John Ramsey's fingerprints. John Ramsey has an inspector gadget fingerprint wiper/changer that actually allows him to change his fingerprints into anyone elses in his familys or wipe his away while leaving theirs. Duh ! You think you have Burke Ramsey's prints on that there bowl ? Wrong ! Those are really John Ramseys but he switched them into Burkes ! You think those are PR's fingerprints on there ? Boom ! Think again, those are Johns again ! Gotcha! John wiped his off ! He also has a fiber abductor as well. What this object does is pull all of his fibers off of things like garottes, tape, paint trays etc while leaving the rest of his family member's fibers in place. Warning, only works on secondary transfer fibers ! Last and not least we have the John Ramsey invisibility and brainwashing cloak. You think Patsy Ramsey lied ? Wrong fool ! John had his cloak on !!!! JR was the 1 who really lied, it just looked like PR did ! He made her do it with his cloak ! Do you ever wonder how someone can run around planting evidence in plain sight of their wife all day without her knowing ? Cloak of invisibilty of coarse ! Hellooooo. What do you not understand here ? These items are made by Doc's school of logical inferencing.

Of course you might leave your child upstairs with foreign faction kidnappers possibly still in your house. Is that not what everyone would do ? You would probably call friends over for a bagel and cleaning party while your child stays upstairs as well ?

She was beautifully laid out in her casket, white dress, blonde curls and her Miss Colorado crown. Must have just been heartbreaking for one so beautiful and the light for so many people to be taken so brutally. Maybe we can do something for her by trying to understand how this could have happened and who did it. Without tearing each other apart in here.

James, BDI is nothing like IDI. I don't know how you can even compare the two.

All the evidence and facts that we have lead to BDI being the most likely outcome. With or without a CBS documentary.

JDI, on the other hand, is pure hogwash as it's based on people making up facts that don't exist. There is no evidence whatsoever (not even the teeniest tiniest bit) that points to John being responsible. Yes, he is most likely guilty of doing some things that night, I have no doubts about that. But did he instigate this murder...? On the evidence you can't even consider it.

What we know is that either PR, JR or BR instigated that murder because there wasn't an intruder. All we can do is go off the evidence that was IN THE HOUSE. And the majority of that highlights Burke as the likely culprit much more than the other two. Simple as that really.

And we don't know for certain the pineapple is what set him off (I don't actually believe that). All we know is that the pineapple gives us the timeline. I personally think it happened closer to the basement.

MOST kids (yes, MOST kids) have hit another kid with an object before. I see it as school every single day. Kids don't think of what could happen and don't consider the consequences or someone can get hurt. That's why kids fall out of trees and siblings make each other cry all the time.

Yes, kids get into terrible fights, both in and out of school. I did a lot of that myself as a kid. For me, grade school was a bit of a battleground. And I've observed kids going at each other many times over the years. And with all sorts of weapons. But you know what? I never once saw one kid bash in the head of another kid, much less crack the kid's skull from end to end with a single blow. And I've never heard of anything like that either.

"All the evidence and facts that we have lead to BDI being the most likely outcome. With or without a CBS documentary."

If all the evidence and facts lead to BDI, why does BDI ignore most of the evidence and facts? Like I said, its reminiscent of IDI. BDI has reached the point where it has to give Burke this batshit crazy pineapple motive to get some people to swallow it. For people who have thoroughly researched the case over the years, their gag reflex kicks in immediately.

With or without the CBS documentary? That's funny. Before CBS, one out of every hundred people on these sites swallowed BDI. Why such a low percentage? Because most people on these sites had researched the case for years. Only now that BDI has been pushed on a mainstream outlet do we see all these instant experts now claiming BDI makes sense. I've seen some people have the collossal gall to say there are no more unanswered questions.

"All we can do is go off the evidence that was IN THE HOUSE. And the majority of that highlights Burke as the likely culprit"

What majority? This BDI theory being pushed hinges on a flashlight and killing her over a pineapple snack. You yourself don't even swallow the pineapple motive and since the flashlight may not even be the murder weapon, this so called majority is turning into nothing awfully quick.

To Anon about previous 911 call. Yes, one was made earlier, a day or so before, Mrs Stine answered the door. Irrc it was later said to be a misdial by Grandpa Pugh. Theorists think it was a test to gauge response times.

In Kolar's 2012 book he said that Burke was in therapy BEFORE the murder. Irrc so was JonBenet. Perhaps due to their mom having cancer. Or...???

To CC - I don't recall posts where someone was commenting on on whether Burke is "unattractive" and John is "attractive". I have read posts made about his demeanor and mannerisms and his statements. Burke favors his mother, has pretty eyes, a nice complexion and pretty teeth. But I do think he could've accidentally struck his sister too hard that night.

Dr Phil on Burke - said he has a girlfriend, and irrc showed a pic of the couple and she was blonde.

Lin Wood has had multiple lawsuits for the family and yes, when Burke was a minor, and he and the Ramseys have won (got paid).

Hi Tec boots - Burke did tell police he owned a pair, neither parent recalled that he did. Fleet Jr also owned a pair (as did Helgoth) and his name was brought up to Patsy. Helgoth spent time in the Army.

CBS special was originally to be a 6 hour, three day special. Unknown why the 2 hours were cut.

"If all the evidence and facts lead to BDI, why does BDI ignore most of the evidence and facts? Like I said, its reminiscent of IDI"

James, as I said BDI is polar opposite to IDI. I literally don't understand what you mean by that.

And please what evidence and facts does BDI ignore...please enlighten me. And whilst your at it, please tell me what evidence and facts JDI is linked to.

And CBS experts have already proved many on this blog as wrong. Many people on this blog said (including Doc) that it was physically impossible for a 10 year old to provide that headblow. They were ADAMENT. Yet, that has been proved. If Doc and co were wrong about that I wonder what else they could be wrong about....

It's the other way round, Zed. BDI is based on NO evidence whatsoever, that's the problem. It's all conjecture, assumption, and assertion based on some sort of "expertise" that's highly questionable. The only thing approaching evidence is a set of fingerprints that could have gotten onto that bowl at any time earlier that day or even that week. The only other "evidence" is the enhanced 911 call, which demonstrates nothing but their own confirmation bias.

I saw that the SBTC came up again. Over the years It's been thought to stand for a few other things, the Atlanta telephone book in the house (Southern Bell Telephone Company) to "Spare Burke this Christmas". In Helgoth's home he had a ball cap with those initials.Reported by Anderson Cooper, as well as mentioned on acandyrose.http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/anderson.cooper.360/blog/2006/08/did-santa-claus-kill-jonbenet.html

If the core group of BDI/CBS diehards hold Doc and his theory in such scorn, one is tempted to ask: Why continue to post here? Surely you'd be happier talking only to like-minded individuals? If there's no obliging Topix or Websleuths site, why not create your own on Blogspot?

This query and suggestion is made absent malice, and only intended to offer an alternative.CC

For me, it's quite the contrary. I welcome all theories and feel that through sharing, we might just stumble upon something that will help the case. I believe it's the BDI theorists that are being ridiculed and treated with contempt here. There is no malice in offering up a theory or an opinion, only when it's met with such disdain as is found here.

I didn't realize we all had to agree with Doc, to post on his blog. I thought this blog was to provide insight and different views as seen through different eyes. My bad, I guess.

Sometimes when you mull over something for a time, it changes your thought process, or a light goes on and you begin to see things from a different perspective. As far as creativity goes, there is just so much you can glean from the same evidence.The frustrating parts of this case are the discrepancies and contradictions in the evidence presented.It's almost as if it's done on purpose, so that this case cannot be solved.

Good Morning all ye who enter here. How about this. If someone has a theory that is different from your own you respectfully consider it, ask questions if it makes no sense, read more about this case (there is plenty on it, including numerous books) look up sources of information if you wonder where it came from, share that with others, and present arguments that are as well thought out as you are capable of doing - and there are capable thinkers in here. Read all of Doc's intros and postings and if you disagree say so. It's fine to have a dissenting opinion isn't it? I still have questions about certain things that haven't been addressed here but I would prefer not to have what I ask or contribute to be met with "you know it happened some other way." No, I don't know it happened some other way (presumably the way that individual believes it happened). There is a way to argue in Philosophy that is logical and reasonable. It takes being able to break down the points of an argument and use inductive and deductive argument. It's difficult but again you can read about how to do that on the net as well (although I recommend a course in study). But let's all try again, by respecting the thoughts and divergent opinions presented here. So having said that, Burke's knife was found down in the basement in one of the rooms near where the body was found. The housekeeper said he had been whittling all over the house at one point and she had asked Patsy to hide the knife. She had hidden it herself on occasion. But yet, it turns up in the basement. 1) do you think Burke had whittled the stick used as leverage around the cord? 2) do you think he had "sawed" or cut the cord with the knife? 3) do you think he had "sawed" or cut the duct tape. Investigators said the duct tape looked cut or sawed on both ends. Thank you.

my problem with the CBS show..if bdi IMO he told us EXACTLY how it happened back when he was nine. it was almost bragging. so why be so stubborn and claim it was over pineapple and the mw was the flashlight. I cant believe they would have left the mw right there next to the bowl but were so carefully in staging the rest of it.

Great post and some thought provoking questions as well. I had read that the housekeeper put the knife in the linen closet where only PR would've known it was there. Not sure how true that statement was, but that's what I read.It's quite possible that BR was using the knife in the days before, and who knows if he made the garrote earlier. As you said, and I've read that he was a boy scout and they do learn how to whittle and tie different type knots. That knife was found with the body, so it's quite possible that it was used to cut the duct tape as well. Doesn't seem like a stretch to me to make that deduction.

I acknowledge in advance the highly conjectural nature of the following.

Why did Patsy not leave a deathbed confession?

If BDI, and PR was involved in the staging / cover up (supposedly as a loving parent who couldn't face her remaining child being taken away/stigmatised/implicated), then surely her last act as Burke's mother would have been a confession to protect him from future accusations? To admit Steve Thomas was right would have a) future proofed Burke, and b) bought a closure to JR and BR at least as far as direct accusations go.

Alternatively, if JDI and PR was involved after the fact, a deathbed confession of her sole role/guilt would have protected JR.

I submit that the lack of a deathbed confession could indicate that to her last breath, PR believed in the intruder and JR's innocence, despite his ever changing stories. If BDI, then she missed the last - and devoid of personal risk - chance to future proof Burke from the very scenario we are seeing with the BDI /CBS bandwagon.

Well done, Susu- that's a provocative question and a new take on an old topic. We've discussed Patsy and dying declarations (a legal device), but never from the viewpoint of her protecting JR or BR. Very good point.CC

After spending some time reading this interesting but nearsighted blog, I have to ask 1 question.What evidence is there of John Ramsey doing these things? I just want someone to give me 1 single piece of evidence that is not pure speculation. Just one.What you are calling logical inferences are not actually logical inferences but speculation.One can draw 50 conclusions from a scenario that "make sense",but there has to be some burden of proof or evidence behind what is speculated.If there is some proof then it becomes a logical inference, if there is no proof or evidence then it stays as speculation. Which is exactly what the JDI theory on this blog is,pure one hundred percent speculation.

Let's face facts. There is no solid evidence against any of them. Which is why we say this case won't be solved based on the evidence or lack thereof. I don't really think there is much in the way of circumstantial evidence either. We do have fingerprints, BUT they belong to members of the household, which in and of itself would be considered quite normal.

I think only maybe one BDI was swayed by the CBS television show. Not all BDI's are. so there are others here who believe BDI but not based on the CBS special. So please don't lump all of us into that category. For me the CBS special cut off 2 hours they were going to air, their analysis by experts (Spitz and Henry Lee) was lacking, they said they were talking to Fleet White off camera and then didn't make any more mention of it on that he "had something to tell us" and then at the end said they were all in agreement but didn't come out and say what they were in agreement about - but inferred Burke. I also think that of those in here that believe BDI we are not basing it on a bowl of pineapple. It's only CBS that "showed" in their recreation that JB may have taken a piece of pineapple from "Burke's bowl" , had her wrist grabbed by Burke and he chased her presumably with the flashlight, then next scene is Burke being comforted by his mother. It's television, nothing more. For me I have read everything or nearly everything on this case. Not constantly for 20 years, but off and on. I though Kolar made a very good case from an investigative standpoint. But let's stop assuming in here that the BDI theorists are centering their theory around a bowl of pineapple.

There is no proof that JDI. But, a case can be made, and it has been made in this "nearsighted" blog many times over the course of several years and thousands of posts, beyond a reasonable doubt, that JDI. All other scenario's are arguably fraught with unreasonable doubt, and supported by verbose and fantasticle speculation.

I'm just going to add a warning here. Next month Lifetime will air their own interpretation of the JB mystery. They have hired an actor to play Steve Thomas. I'm guessing this may be a PDI, including dramatizations of how she may have done it (over bed wetting). Watch it, enjoy it, talk about it, but be certain that the world of television is entertainment. To be fair and balanced there should also be a show that dramatizes a possible scenario of JDI. None have been done so far.

Yes EG, Burke was in the boyscouts from "1993 on" according to John Ramsey in his book "Death of Innocence." The cord around the stick resembles a "clove hitch" taught in the cub scouts/boy scouts. In order to be awarded Merit badges I'm assuming boy scouts need to practice knot tying. Certainly the wrist tying was not sophisticated, it wasn't used for restraint.

I saw in a previous post, that the man who played Santa told JBR that she'd be getting a special gift the day after Christmas.Was he asked about making that statement? If so, what was his response and why did he say that? Or did he deny saying it?

That is a creepy coincidence that he had a daughter murdered on the same day and that his wife wrote a book about a girl killed in her basement. Maybe too much of a coincidence, and yet they were both cleared. The way the Ramsey's handed keys out, they could've entered through the front or back doors, and left the same way. None the wiser.

I read about that too EG. I'm not sure who made that statement to JB. JB did tell her friend about it. Yes, Bill Reynolds, the man who played Santa Claus had a daughter who was kidnapped and made to watch another little girl be raped. And Bill Reynolds wrote a play about a girl being tortured and murdered in a basement but it was based on the Sylvia Likens murder - the teenage girl who was a neighbor to the tormentors who imprisoned her, etc. Such a horrible sad awful case. Bill Reynolds wife won a money prize and some literary award for her story. But I don't think they could connect the dots to the JB murder. It was just another "exploring" of all options.

Thanks, Inq. I read where he gave JBR a note and that LE found the note and questioned him. I didn't see what type response he gave when asked about the note. They cleared him, as he said he was with family and they felt he was too frail. So many eerie things about this case. Like when PR received the doll she ordered for JBR and mentioned to JR that it looked just like JBR would look in a coffin.

Hi Inquisitive, in regards to your post imploring us to listen to theories, read more, etc. I just need to point out to you that many of us have been on this blog for over 3 years. We have already read, or been referred to the other sites, books, shows, etc. I can say that I have done a great deal of homework. I've read all the comments on this blog and carefully considered them. Some of what is being posted recently has been hashed and rehashed before, so I can't stomach any more verbosity on it. If someone wants to present an end to end theory, that takes into consideration the timing of the 911 call, the contents of the ransom note, the fact that John's handwriting does very much resemble the RN, meaning he cannot be ruled out any more or less than Patsy, the Johnism's that are in the note (very compelling to me), the results from the autopsy, and the observations by Linda Arnt, who was there....well then, I'm not terribly interested in going backwards in my logical thought process.

I also have to add to this the fact that I live in North Atlanta. I know people who knew Patsy, and to this day, they know her sisters. There is no one of them who thinks Patsy would go along with mutilating her daughter's body. I personally believe there were marital problems, and I personally think John may have molested JBR only a few times before he realized that she was not going to keep quiet about it. But, even if he did not molest her, I do not believe Burke molested her and I do not believe he strangled and mutilated her. John is behind this, and the motive may never be known - but he alone is crafty enough to write a manipulative ransom note, chock full of CYA things to protect himself. It is just as possible that he molested her, since he could wield power over a child that another child could not. Read about fathers who molest their daughters (and only their daughters) -- starting with the Miss America who was molested by her rich, accomplished, powerful father. You won't find proof that John molested JBR because the victim is dead. The victim is who outs these type of men. There is a reason JBR is dead. No one can tell on John now.

If you really like the conspiracy stuff: what if JR paid that truck driver to rear-end Beth? She was victim #1 and she's dead too? I doubt it very much, but hey, why not go there given that no one believes JR is a perv.

I believe Patsy to the end was completely and genuinely grief stricken about the loss of her daughter. And that doesn't mean at all that she didn't have a hand in the staging to protect her son from LE and the scandal of what it would mean in the business community and social community. There are many things John said that we can't just take at face value - or Patsy. That she "found" the note at the foot of the spiral staircase (I suggest she put it there so the police would see it there according to what she said on the 911 call) or that John said he heard her scream, he ran downstairs, spread out the note to read it page by page, then back upstairs and told her to call 911 (he probably did tell her to call 911 but only when they were ready for for to do so). She also says she didn't know what the note said specifically but she could say for certain that it was signed Victory and SBTC. Maybe that's true, but it's irrelevant. To me the "tells" that she was involved in staging was the same outfit was on, the makeup was on, the fiber from her jacket on the sticky side of the duct tape, and her behavior the morning the police came over. Maybe one could say that she did all of the staging and John didn't, but then are we to suggest that taking two (and he changes from one to two) melatonin would knock him out so sufficiently that he wouldn't notice she wasn't in bed all night?

I agree with you, Inq. PR was distraught over JBR's death as any mother would be. She was also devoutly religious and I believe she somehow convinced herself that the dreadful deed couldn't be undone, and that JBR was now with God, therefore okay. I think this is how she justified going about her daily life after it happened with some type of normalcy, if you can call it that.

Yes, EG. That does make sense. John apparently made peace with it later as well. His most recent book has to do with using faith to help cope with major losses in life. Has the smiling Burke moved on? He said in the interview with the social worker that he had moved on which is a curious thing for a little boy to say so soon after the murder, isn't it?

Yes Inq---very strange indeed. I think that was something he may have heard and picked up on. A young boy wouldn't use those words.

And you're right about the BDI people not basing their theories around a CBS special or a bowl of pineapple. The pineapple was key because it put JBR there with BR, however even that's disputed now with this fruit cocktail evidence.

Good grief. You can't accept that when asked who is the note from, that Patsy couldn't have, or didn't already flip to the last page and read what it said? I know for sure that if I read "we have your daughter" then my first reaction would be "Who has her? Who wrote this!" Then I would be freaking out so much that I would thrust the note at my husband, tell HIM to call the police, and I would start looking for her or for how she got out of the house.

As for John and that Other Side of Suffering book -- read it! It is the writings of a total narcissist, not a remorseful Christian. No real Christian talks like that because we are taught that putting yourself last spells JOY. He doesn't talk about Jon Benet, he talks about no one but himself. It was sickening to read.

I'm intrigued by Burke, mostly b/c I would like to believe that no parent would do to JB what was done to her, except to protect another child. BR had experienced some trauma (mom had cancer, absent father) -- he might have a flash point of anger leading to tragedy. I would like to believe that if JR and PR "did it" (strangulation and staging), they did it while trying to protect their remaining child. I've read a lot about BR as a child -- he had toileting issues, he was quiet, and he seemed a bit odd in the CBS interview tape. Bt at the same time he was not a problem in school, and significantly, he had friends. One thing that gives me pause in considering Burke is that the Foreign Faction book makes frequent references to medical records that the DA refused to obtain to give the Ramseys a "window of privacy." That does make me wonder. Could Patsy or John have been treated for depression? Burke for emotional or anger issues? Autism spectrum? We'll likely never know.

Thank you Stacey for your contemplative post. Indeed John was taking medication for anti-depression, as well as Patsy (April 20, 1997 interview BPDA office). He stated he "has been" on paxel, an quanopin which is an Adavan-like drug. Patsy as well. And there's nothing out of the ordinary about that, many many people have been on Paxel, in the late 90's it was one of the primary medications used to treat depression. I too read about the window of privacy. That could refer to JB's pediatrican records, any chart notations of conversations between P and the doctor as well as doctor visits involving Burke and/or the two year span he had under therapy with a Psychologist (or Psychiatrist). We also don't know what medications would have or could have been prescribed to Burke. So welcome to the "intrigued by Burke" group Stacey!

New and Improved!

Currently available from the Kindle Store

Search This Blog

Things to Come

Things to Come

I just learned the other day of a new book on a case once labeled, "the crime of the century," but now almost completely forgotten. The title: Foreign Faction: Who Really Kidnapped JonBenet? The author: James Kolar, a lead investigator during the reign of DA Mary Lacy, who famously exonerated John and Patsy Ramsey on the basis of a few miniscule fragments of so-called "intruder DNA." Thankfully, Kolar is not among those convinced by that very dubious "evidence." On the contrary, according to an excellent review,New Clues in JonBenet Ramsey Murder, recently published in the Daily Beast, Kolar's book presents strong evidence against the intruder theory -- implying, of course, that the murder was an inside job. I agree.

The publication of this new book, which I promptly ordered as soon as I found out about it, has prompted me, in spite of many misgivings, to once again plunge into the fray of this case, which for too many years, back in the late 90's and early 00's, as a regular poster on several Internet forums, occupied far too much of my attention and proved an endless source of frustration and annoyance, not only to me, but most of my fellow iSleuths. My problem was that I had solved it.